I am away from home, and thus, away from my resources at the moment, but that very well does sound correct. I don't own one of the 500CFM carbs, so perhaps I can reference it somewhere. I can tell you that the bores on my 400 AFB are tiny, I believe I checked at one time and they are definitely smaller than the 500, but that's not to say that what you propose regarding the 500/600 is false. The 400 AFB was just a smidgen larger than the 390 holley on the primaries, I believe.

"DW"

_________________

If it ain't broke, fix it!

Hell, run a Predator...

I think if you're going to run 6 (barrels) you'd probably ought to go to a carb like a Weber sidedraft or the like. I know diddly-squat about those, but I think they are VV (variable venturi), right?

I can tell you that the more venturii you apply to an engine, the more you can throw the common CFM requirement formula out the window, because you are increasing the venturi area at a different ratio than you would if you just kept making the carb bore sizes huge but kept the number of them the same. I have a street/strip 440 with an old purple shaft cam and two "550" Carter AFB's ("1100 CFM") set up to open progressively, and it runs great. The carbs dont even have the usual secondary air door to regulate flow on the secondaries. Still, I think six stock one barrels on a slant six would be WAY too much carburation... I think three one barrels would be the $#!#. Set it up like a tri-power, run around on the center one for excellent throttle response and fabricate some progressive linkage that tips the outboards in at about 1/3 to 1/2 throttle (which you'll want to be able to adjust to your liking).

"DW"

_________________

If it ain't broke, fix it!

Dennis,

Where do you get a 400cfm carter? Is it off of a 273?

_________________
My truck is a Frankenstein creation
Built from the dead carcasses of others
And brought BACK TO LIFE!

Pulled my 400cfm from a 63 corvette (duel quad set-up), believe they were popular during this time with them until the went to the dark side with rochesters. Reason I believe these to be factory is the GM style choke and the various GM part numbers stamped adove the carter numbers....Dave

_________________
Troops on the battlefield have a far better view of the battle then the generals who lead them

Carter made aftermarket AFBs in 400 (9400), 500 (9500) and 625 (9625) cfm during the early '70s. They worked very well.They could be had in electric or manual choke models. After a few years they dropped the 9400, as nobody was buying them. I had a pair of 500s on a 318 with an Edelbrock dual 4v hi-rise manifold. It ran very well and certainly had the WTF going on. I ran various carb/manfiold choices on this engine and eventually settled for a LD340 and Holley 650 DB as the best performer.

Short answer: yes

See related posts:
http://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic ... highlight=

Mine is 4294S, originally for a '67 273 stick-shift.

Here are some other numbers to try:

4295S 4304S 4305S 4119S 4120S 4121S 4122S

"DW"

_________________

If it ain't broke, fix it!

Now I know. Mwahahaha

_________________
My truck is a Frankenstein creation
Built from the dead carcasses of others
And brought BACK TO LIFE!

"Still, I think six stock one barrels on a slant six would be WAY too much carburation... I think three one barrels would be the $#!#. Set it up like a tri-power, run around on the center one for excellent throttle response and fabricate some progressive linkage that tips the outboards in at about 1/3 to 1/2 throttle (which you'll want to be able to adjust to your liking)."

Progressive linkage is what I was thinking. I know the 6 carbs is way too much for a slant normally, but I was hoping to lower the input from the 6 carbs so it could work. I'm thinking it would be much smoother running on 3 carbs with less fuel and air, than say a 1 barrel all by itself in the center. It's that whole distribution idea. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd like to have 2 cylinders running normally on 1/3 to 1/2 output with a secondary carb kicking in at the 1/3 to 1/2 throttle. The secong carb also running at a lower capacity.

_________________
Slant Six... out of the ordinary - just like me!

Your problems with six carbs on a progressive setup on a six, I would think would be one: Will there be enough airflow across the venturii (all the carbs open (even if they are just "cracked" open) to pull fuel smoothly and consistently from the main discharge nozzles? And two: What's your fuel distribution going to be like? That's an issue on any slant six with any carburetion, but once you start sticking on more carbs, it can get even more complicated. Seems like you'd want to employ some type of plenum for that many carbs opening at different rates. You certainly don't want the cylinders running at different a/f ratios if you can at all avoid it.

"DW"

An afterthought... Since you seem to like "gang" carburetion, what about a bunch of real tiny carbs from a non-automotive application? That'd be different fer sure.... Anyone have any ideas?

_________________

If it ain't broke, fix it!

You guys need to think ouside the box...

http://www.memorylaners.homestead.com/3x4intake.html

Myself, I've never even seen "the box" up close... Maybe that's because I run when I see it coming...

"DW"

P. S. - Looking "sick" and running well do not alwez go hand-in-hand...

_________________

If it ain't broke, fix it!

I think that setup belongs to Larry Page, president of the Florida Inliners chapter.
PS Slant Cecil and I are members.

_________________
Charrlie_S
65 Valiant 100 2dr post 170 turbo
66 Valiant Signet 170 nitrous
64 Valiant Signet
64 Valiant 4dr 170
64 Valiant 4dr 225

"An afterthought... Since you seem to like "gang" carburetion, what about a bunch of real tiny carbs from a non-automotive application? That'd be different fer sure.... Anyone have any ideas?"

At a recent Mini club meet, I saw a 4 cyl mini (the original) with 4 very small carbs, almost looked too small to be motorcycle carbs. The guy said it ran 'smooth and fast'.

I seem to recall the 6-packs only have the choke mech. on the middle carb. Makes things easier I reckon.

I looked at the pick of the tri carb set up. That is what I started out initially. The reason I changed my design was the length of runners. To keep it under the hood, means either curving up and having short runners, or running the carbs over towards the driver side fender. I didn't want the carbs that far left. I guess I figured if it was going to stick above the hood, why not have the six pack look? I suppose it could still be cool with three carbs.

_________________
Slant Six... out of the ordinary - just like me!

We were having the same sort of discussion at FordSix.com.

In my opinion, CFM alone is not always a good way to figure carburetion because it depends on so many factors. You cannot ignore # of cylinders, manifold configuration, or engine layout.

For example, what is the cfm requirement for a single cylinder, 4-cycle, 225 cube engine, with 90% VE, running at 1 rpm? It's 213 cfm.

Now why is it so different than a 225 six cylinder engine of the same displacement? Time. Thought the displacement is the same and the engine is only running a 1rpm, it needs the entire displacement all at once.

By dividing the requirement and averaging it in a manifold over six cylinders you come up with a fairly low CFM requirement because you can spread the requirement out over time.

But if you were to take six stock 1bbl carbs and mount one on each cylinder, you would probably be in the ballpark for carb capacity. This is because each cylinder only uses that capacity intermittently, not contiuously, so cubic feet per MINUTE takes on a different meaning. Though each cylinder has a small requirement over a minute's time at any given rpm, it is only inhaling air one large gulp at a time during small periods during that minute.

This is why a triple 45DCOE setup might have a capacity of 1250 cfm, but works pretty well on a small 225 cube engine when set up with individual runners. Mount that much carburetion on an open plenum feeding all the cylinders, and you would have a dog.

The same effect is noted when you look at other systems like Proline's dual carb manifold. Two webers might look like over capacity, but though each of those carbs is feeding fewer cylinders, they do so more intermittently over time. The logic might be hard to follow, but it is borne out in other designs like dual plane V8 manifolds.

And as someone mentioned earlier, it's all apples and oranges when you look at the depression that the carb was rated at.

_________________
Jack Collins
66 Mustang 250 EFI
Lotus Seven Replica (Under Construction)
<img border="2" src="http://fordsix.com/locost/locostsig.jpg" width="275" height="118" >